jfitzpatrick at March 5th, 2014 12:34 — #1
Originally published at: http://www.howtogeek.com/183439/ask-htg-do-you-need-a-router-for-simple-single-computer-setups/
There’s a common misconception that if you have a simple setup, like only one home computer, you don’t need a router. Read on as we explain why even a lone desktop needs a buddy.
wilsontp at March 5th, 2014 12:46 — #2
As you’ve discovered, you can, in fact, just plug your computer directly into your broadband modem and start browsing the internet.
When consumer broadband and DSL first became a thing, that was how you did it: plugged the PC in to the router. In fact, the cable companies refused to support installations that included broadband routers; they wanted users to pay for a second IP address if you had another computer on your network.
Boy, have things changed. Now, my cable company doesn't offer a second-IP service, and the modem they rent has a router and WAP built in.
jlee1 at March 5th, 2014 15:36 — #3
Well, He can always configure the firewall on his own computer for security. I do not think it is that bad.
He might want a router for wifi though, so can connect with this smart phone, tablet, visitor's laptop and other devices.
I am not sure what will happen if he tries to run VM connecting directly to the modem. He should be fine if he is using NAT, but what will happen if he tries to use bridge connection? I don't think it will work.
tuffy at March 6th, 2014 08:54 — #4
This won't affect you if your ISP is a NAT and closes all ports.
Also, plugging your computer directly might make your internet connection slightly faster
wilsontp at March 6th, 2014 11:02 — #5
That's generally not the case in the US for landline providers. Broadband and DSL providers give users public IP's. Cellular providers do NAT, though.
As to speed; the difference is negligible. The router adds a small amount of latency; it is digital after all. However, it's not even measurable by any tool I have, since the difference is less than the variation in ping times on remote sites just due to loading and traffic conditions.
steveneuler at March 6th, 2014 11:05 — #6
I perked up when I read that there are people out there with the time and lunacy to compromise machines and plant malware... A router firewall should prevent that kind of intervention... One New York State Senator wants real names attached to internet communication posts in an attempt to foster greater politeness in the responses. Yeah right. What I see, is a bunch of psychos out there who would disrupt a person's life anyway they could if that person disagreed about guns, religion, science, politics... So any greater protection afforded to the home computer is to the good...
tpatriarche at March 11th, 2014 23:47 — #7
After reading a couple of scary MS articles on Methods of Attack, I am very happy to have a router firewall as well as all the usual software. I do have a home network, but even if I didn't I'd use a router.
BE SAFE OUT THERE!
mreeuwij at March 13th, 2014 22:48 — #8
Hmm, tbh, I've not seen a pure, bridged modem in years. In the old days that was common, but all modems I've seen the last 10 years have a build in router. Even the Cable modem I have here has build in features to negate DDOS attacks, and other options to negate various attacks, Wireless, guest access over wireless and even wireless for all users of my ISP, which is simular and separate of my guest access.
But also, the article fore-goes the entire IPv6 discussion, for all the advantages for having a router with IPv4, well, they don't work with IPv6.
If the article would have been written 10 years ago, I would have understood why it is bringing the message, but as they say: too little, too late.
wilsontp at March 13th, 2014 22:59 — #9
That's interesting... I still see mostly simple modems around here. In fact, I prefer not to buy so-called "gateways" (modem with integrated router+wifi) because the router seldom lives up to what I can buy separately.
As to IPv6: there certainly are routers with IPv6 capability, and there's no reason to assume an IPv6 firewall is any less secure than a NAT firewall. Firewalls have been around since before NAT, which is really just a hack anyway. Personally, I'm looking forward to doing away with all the junk that's associated with NAT.
mreeuwij at March 15th, 2014 12:35 — #10
Hmm, that may be because I live in the Netherlands. ISP's provide modem-routers to their customers for a long time here now. And they're not really bad ones either. My ISP provided a Cisco modem router per default. So cant say they provide bad stuff either.
wilsontp at March 15th, 2014 13:28 — #11
Yeah, that's actually pretty decent. Are you on DSL? Personally, I prefer bridges, because I want 100% control over my router, but if that's not a priority, then there's nothing wrong with the Cisco/Linksys gateways.
jfitzpatrick at March 15th, 2014 13:37 — #12
This topic was automatically closed after 10 days. New replies are no longer allowed.